<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: your subject-less mail



On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 08:27:48AM EST, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 07:05:34AM EST, David Beverly wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 02:05:32AM -0500, David Yitzchak Cohen wrote:

> In other words, an otherwise-500-byte message turns into a 4.5K message.
> (Since the last time somebody's complained, the amount of crap I dump
> in the headers has skyrocketed.)  You win.  I'm going to start rotating
> headers around on mailing list posts, so nobody has to download all my
> headers for every single message I send.  I hope to put together the
> mechanism this afternoon.  Until then, leaving my setup as-is won't do
> much more damage.

Okay, I've decided to spare everybody the rotation hassle, so I removed
most of the nonessential headers, tossing them into a separate file
instead.  Now, people on mailing lists don't have to download all
my headers.  (Off mailing lists, of course, my mail remains complete
(headers, signature, and all), except by special request.  The only thing
I'm not prepared to omit for anybody is my GPG signature, for reasons
you're all familiar with.)  I left the cool ones that take advantage of
Outlook features in, since I'd hate to miss the opportunity to annoy any
stray Outlook user who happens to bump into our list.  Maybe I'll remove
them for the mutt-dev list, since people there are extremely unlikely
to be using Outlook ... I dunno. . .

/me imagines there's much rejoicing, now that cell phones everywhere can
suddenly download more than one message without running out of memory ;-P

 - Dave

-- 
Uncle Cosmo, why do they call this a word processor?
It's simple, Skyler.  You've seen what food processors do to food, right?

Please visit this link:
http://rotter.net/israel

Attachment: pgp8lv3dnNjni.pgp
Description: PGP signature